Collective punishment - Christian views

[gotmethinking]

As a Christian, do you support the Geneva Convention, Article 33 which states "No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited"*?

If so, then how do you reconcile God's directives in Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 28-29 and Leviticus 19:20-22 to i) stone to death; ii) force to marry her rapist; and iii) scourge, women rape victims?

* I quote from Wikipedia, which may not be reliable, but I think it's safe to assume the basic message is likely represented in the Geneva Convention.

 

[Sketcher]

As a Christian, do you support the Geneva Convention, Article 33 which states "No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited"*?

If so, then how do you reconcile God's directives in Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 28-29 and Leviticus 19:20-22 to i) stone to death; ii) force to marry her rapist; and iii) scourge, women rape victims?

* I quote from Wikipedia, which may not be reliable, but I think it's safe to assume the basic message is likely represented in the Geneva Convention.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 refers to consensual sex, which would have been adultery.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does refer to rape, but the penalty is one-way, upon the rapist. He absolutely must pay the fine, and does not have the right to divorce the woman. But neither the woman is forced to marry her, nor is her father forced to give her in marriage. The rapist just can't say no if for some reason both the father and the woman are willing. Either way, the fine is paid. This is what a rabbi told me when I took the trouble to ask.

Leviticus 19:20-22 involves the case of a slave girl. Slave girls could be betrothed to someone else for payment, but if the owner cheats the man by having sex with her before handing her over, that is sin. Since we don't have slavery, and I know of no Christian or Jew today that wants to re-establish it, I don't see how it is applicable at all. Also, the KJV has the bit about scourging, but the ESV and NASB do not; this is likely due to the newer manuscripts that the KJV used at the time it was published.

 

[gotmethinking]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does refer to rape, but the penalty is one-way, upon the rapist. He absolutely must pay the fine, and does not have the right to divorce the woman. But neither the woman is forced to marry her, nor is her father forced to give her in marriage.

You wrote "But neither [is] the woman forced to marry [him], nor is her father forced to give her in marriage."

The NIV via Bible Gateway website says "He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

How do you conclude the woman is not forced to marry him?

 

[Sketcher]

You wrote "But neither [is] the woman forced to marry [him], nor is her father forced to give her in marriage."

The NIV via Bible Gateway website says "He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

How do you conclude the woman is not forced to marry him?

Because of the emphasis:

"He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

In other words, "you break it, you buy it." If you break something in the store, you need to offer to buy it, and if the owner approves, which he almost certainly will, you pay for the merchandise you broke. But what if he is not willing to hand you the merchandise?

According to Jewish tradition, a man always asks his daughter to see if she is willing to marry a man he would give her to in marriage, since Rebekkah was asked by her father before he gave her to Issac. She has to be willing if it is going to go forward according to tradition. So the father and the daughter both need to approve before she is given in marriage. If one or both are not willing, she is not handed over to the man who took hold of her. But he still has to pay the fine.

 

[gotmethinking]

You wrote "But what if he [the store owner, metaphor for father of the rape victim] is not willing to hand you the merchandise [metaphor for rape victim]?"

It seems from your explanation that the enactment of the punishment against the rapist is determined by the willingness of the father of the victim to give his daughter in marriage.

However, I read in God's Word, in black and white, "He must marry the young woman ... He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

I do not read that he can alternatively provide financial compensation. If the punishment instituted by God can be circumvented by the will of the victim's father, then I am not reading it in the text.

 

[gotmethinking]

It would seem that if the father withheld his daughter, he would be doing so in direct contradiction to God's command.

I also don't understand how the rapist's "punishment" of never being able to divorce the victim as long as he lives, is fulfilled by paying monetary compensation.

 

[Sketcher]

You wrote "But what if he [the store owner, metaphor for father of the rape victim] is not willing to hand you the merchandise [metaphor for rape victim]?"

It seems from your explanation that the enactment of the punishment against the rapist is determined by the willingness of the father of the victim to give his daughter in marriage.

However, I read in God's Word, in black and white, "He must marry the young woman ... He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

I do not read that he can alternatively provide financial compensation. If the punishment instituted by God can be circumvented by the will of the victim's father, then I am not reading it in the text.

The man can't divorce the woman, should he marry her. And if the father and daughter agree to it, he can't say no. Also, remember that the father does have the right of refusal when giving his daughter in marriage generally:

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins." - Exodus 22:16-17

I asked the rabbi if it carried over to the case of a rape, and he said it did.

If you doubt any of this, as I had before I asked him, I would encourage you to ask an orthodox rabbi yourself. They believe they still have to live by this, and that they need to uphold as much of the law as circumstances allow.

 

[gord44]

What did Jesus say? Let he without sin cast the first stone. And since no one is without sin, then no one can stone anyone. Simple. Jesus in a Christian mindset was a true image of the Father. Jesus spoke of compassion and non judgement, not violence and retribution.